Causal conundrums

2. Nature and evolution

Is ‘nature’ an idea of a thing made of the ‘thing’ or the idea?

What is nature: a ubiquitous presence, the original cause, the mother of life, a non-thing to explain everything – definable as action without intention – but how to include those things, like intentional actions, that do not fit the definition?

Where in nature is the explanation of things occurring by themselves?

Do the laws of nature open a window onto possibilities that are perceptible only to the makers of windows?

Is evolution a cause or an effect of change – or merely a description of things changing that is then paraded as the explanation?

Does nature act with reason and purpose, or does this arise only with the evolution of higher life forms – either way, how does this square with the idea of ‘natural causes’ that are indifferent and insensible?

Is everything a part of nature and, therefore, essentially natural – including those artificial necessities that have become essential to our way of life?

Can we make a self-explanatory fact of ‘cause-and-effect’ by referencing the one to the other?

What comes first: the fact or its possibility – and which ‘settled facts’ would be sufficient to show us that the possibilities had been exhausted?

Does the idea of nature explain the fact of existence, or does it merely stand-in for the lack of an explanation?

Is there a level of reality, which we accept implicitly, at which ‘nature is’ because ‘nature is’, at which nature makes us ‘the way we are’ and ‘the way we are’ is because of ‘our nature’ – and what does all that explain?

Does ‘causality’ explain what is happening because it happens that way, or show us what will happen because of what has happened?  Is the future the protégé of the past and present?  Does it prove that ‘what is’ will translate seamlessly into what happens next?

Is all evolved behaviour, at root, biology – since it can’t happen without biology?  Is the human mind a sublimation of bodily states – particularly ‘natural’ drives?  Is the ‘power of thought’ explained by non-thinking physical causes?  What does it mean to think that the brain is doing the thinking for us?  Do physical causes constitute our reasoning by constituting our brains?  Is hunger the reason why we choose pizza for tea?

When thinking about the way things ‘happen to be’ because of and beyond ourselves, do we imagine that the causality runs through us to emerge from us?

Are we a unique kind of cause, one that acts with a kind of knowledge of its effect, even upon itself – so is nature now thinking about itself through us?

If nature is comprised entirely of causes acting without intention, then might not one intentional act be sufficient to place the entire family of ‘natural causes’ in a very different universe of possibilities.  In fact, are deliberate acts seen to ‘emerge’ from ‘natural causes’ only because ‘nature’ already sits in a very different universe?

Was nature ever so present in all its diversity than when consciousness first opened its eyes to itself?

Is it just possible that there is a critical difference between the processes of physics and psychology that no ‘law of nature’ will explain?

Has the idea of evolution as a ‘fact of nature’ prevented us from considering it as a fact happening to nature?

To be continued.

Mike Laidler

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.